Reading Questions
Set I
“Good Reasoning”
Applying Ethics, pp. 49-70
1. What two sorts of statements comprise an Argument? [See p. 50]
2. What is the purpose of an argument? [See p. 50]
3. What two tests must A Good Argument (or, as the author puts it, a “sound” argument) pass? [See p. 51] (You might want to think, here, about the relation of what the author calls “validity” to what we will call “the inference test.”)
4. What is a counter-example to an argument, and what is a counter-example to an argument supposed to show? [See pp. 51-52] Provide a counter-example to the following argument:
1 If Maria traveled on a plane, then she took a trip.
2 Maria did not travel on a plane.
3 Therefore, Maria did not take a trip.
[Hint: Think of some things other than a plane on which Maria might have traveled and still have taken a trip. If you can think of any, then you have a counter-example to the above argument.]
5. What two “subtasks” are involved in evaluating an argument? [See p. 55]
6. Define these other important terms:
The
Premise Test
The
Inference Test
Premise
Conclusion
Inference
A Bad Argument
Reading Questions
Set II
“Moral Reasons”
Applying Ethics, pp. 3-23
1. What is it to reason morally? [p. 4]
2. What is individual morality? [See p. 5]
3. What is social morality? [See p. 5]
4. What is Ethical Relativism? [pp. 5-6]
5. What are the two types of ethical relativism? [p. 6]
6. On what two points does the appeal of ethical relativism rest? [p. 6]
7. What are moral principles? [p. 7]
8. How do we decide which moral rule takes precedence in a certain situation? [p. 8]
9. What is the Principle of Utility? [p. 8]
10. In what two ways can we apply the principle of utility? [p. 8]
11. By what principle is the notion of Kantian respect captured? [p. 10]
12. Think of an example, other than the one in the text, of using someone merely as a means to our own ends.
13. What is it to respect persons? [p. 11]
14. What, according to Aristotle, is the human being’s natural purpose? [See pp. 12-13]
Reading Questions
Set III
Aristotle, “Moral
Virtue”
Applying Ethics, pp. 24-31
1.
According
to Aristotle, what is “the highest human good”? [p. 24, introduction to
selection]
2.
What, according
to Aristotle, is “our only self-sufficient goal and the ultimate goal of all
human action”? [p. 24, introduction to selection]
3.
By what
is human happiness determined? [p. 24, introduction to selection]
4.
What,
according to Aristotle, is the proper function of humans? [p. 24, introduction
to selection]
5.
What,
according to Aristotle, is a happy individual? [p. 24, introduction to
selection]
6.
Moral
goodness, according to Aristotle, is the child of _________________. [p. 24]
7.
How do
we first acquire the moral virtues? [p. 24]
8.
By what
two things can “the nature of moral qualities” be destroyed? [p. 25]
9.
How does
Aristotle define moral goodness on
page 26 of our text? How does he there define vice?
10.
What
three conditions must be involved in the doer’s fame of mind if she is to
perform a virtuous action? [p. 27]
11.
In what
three ways is the human soul conditioned? Into which of these three categories
do virtue and vice fall? [p. 27]
12.
What
does Aristotle understand by “the mean of a thing”? [p. 28]
13.
According
to Aristotle, what does it mean to have certain feelings “in the right measure”
or “somewhere between the extremes”? [p. 28]
14.
How does
Aristotle define Virtue on pages 28-29 of our text?
15.
How does
Aristotle define moral excellence on
page 30 of our text?
16.
Why does
Aristotle believe that it’s difficult to achieve virtue? [pp. 30-31]
Reading Questions
Set IV
John Stuart Mill, “Utilitarianism”
Applying Ethics, pp. 35-39
1.
“The
creed which accepts as the foundation of morals Utility, or the
Greatest-Happiness Principle, holds” something. What do they hold? [p. 35]
2.
What,
for Mill, does ‘happiness’ mean? What does ‘unhappiness’ mean? [p. 35]
3.
Given
all that Mill has said so far, try to define Utilitarianism in your
own words.
4.
What,
according to Mill, are “the only things desirable as ends”? [p. 35]
5.
Mill
says that “some kinds of pleasure are
more desirable and more valuable than others” (36). According to Mill, which
kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than “pleasures … of
mere sensation”? Do you agree with Mill here? Why, or why not?
6.
What,
according to Mill, makes one pleasure more desirable than another? [p. 36]
7.
Explain
a few of the objections to utilitarianism. Then explain how Mill responds to each
of those objections. [pp. 36-39]
8.
If
you’re inclined toward utilitarianism, can you think of any of your own
arguments that will support that position? If you’re not inclined toward
utilitarianism, can you think of any of your own arguments against that
position?
Reading Questions
Set V
Immanuel Kant,
“Respect for Persons”
Applying Ethics, pp. 31-34
1.
What is
a Hypothetical
Imperative? [p. 31, introduction to selection]
2.
What is
a Categorical
Imperative? Why does Kant consider it an objective law of reason? [p. 31, introduction to selection]
3.
What is
the first formulation of the categorical imperative? [p. 31, introduction to
selection]
4.
What
does Kant mean by a Maxim? [p. 31, introduction to selection]
5.
What is
the third formulation of the categorical imperative? [p. 32, introduction to
selection]
6.
What is
the second formulation of the categorical imperative? [p. 32, introduction to
selection]
7.
What
does it mean to say that human beings have unconditional worth? [p. 32,
introduction to selection]
8.
According
to Kant, what is it that “exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means
to be arbitrarily used by this or that will”? [p. 32]
9.
What are
things, and why are they called that? [p. 32]
10.
What are
Persons,
and why are they called that? [p. 32]
11.
What is
“the practical imperative”? [p. 32] How does it compare to the categorical
imperative and to the universal imperative of duty?
12.
What is
a realm of ends? [p. 33]
13.
Under
what law does each rational being stand? [p. 33]
14.
What is
the will’s principle when the legislation appropriate to morality is able to
arise from it? [p. 33]
15.
What is
the difference between price and Dignity?
[pp. 33-34] Do you think human beings have a price, or do you think that they
have dignity? Defend your answer.
Reading Questions
Set VI
John T. Noonan, “An Almost Absolute Value in History”
Applying Ethics, pp. 180-184
1. What is Noonan’s “simple and all-embracing” criterion for humanity? [p. 181]
2. What does Noonan mean when he says that “there is considerable elasticity to the idea of viability”? [p. 181]
3. Why, according to Noonan, do some people hold that the fetus is “‘unformed’ in the most basic human sense”? [p. 181]
4. According to Noonan, is a newborn baby or a 90-year-old any less of a person than a ten-year-old child? [pp. 181-182]
5. According to Noonan, does social recognition have anything to do with one’s status as a full-fledged human? [p. 182]
6. What does the “sharp shift in probabilities” concern? That is, according to Noonan, when the sharp shift in probabilities occurs, what is it that becomes more probable? [pp. 182-183]
7. According to Noonan, if a hunter were to shoot at a movement in the bushes, and the odds were 1 in 200,000,000 that that same movement were a person’s, would we be likely to acquit the hunter of blame? What about the case in which the odds were 4 in 5? [p. 183] How is the “movement in the bushes” thought-experiment supposed to be relevant to the sharp shift in probabilities referred to in question 7?
8. According to Noonan, what is special about the case of a cancerous uterus and the case of an ectopic pregnancy? [p. 184]
Reading Questions
Set VII
Mary Ann Warren, “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion”
Applying Ethics, pp. 196-206
1.
What is
2.
What are
3.
What is the claim that
4.
Might
5.
Regarding whether it is a person, what do you think
6.
How does
7.
What is
8.
Reading Questions
Set VIII
Leon Kass, “The Wisdom of Repugnance”
Applying Ethics, pp. 275-287
1. In which three familiar contexts is cloning typically discussed? Briefly describe these three contexts, and, for each context, say how discussing cloning in that context affects how we think of the morality of human cloning. [pp. 276-277]
2. Why, according to Kass, are the three approaches mentioned in question 34 “sorely wanting as approaches to human procreation”? [p. 277]
3. According to Kass, what are the “three kinds of concerns and objections” to which cloning is vulnerable? [p. 278]
4. Why, according to Kass, is human procreation “not simply an activity of our rational wills”? [p. 279]
5. Why, according to Kass, would “any attempt to clone a human being … constitute an unethical experiment upon the resulting child-to-be”? [p. 279] Do you agree with Kass here? Why, or why not?
6. Why, according to Kass, might a clone “experience concerns about his distinctive identity”? [p. 280] Do you agree with Kass here? Why, or why not?
7. Why, according to Kass, will human cloning cause an “utter confusion of social identity and kinship ties”? [pp. 280-281] Do you agree with Kass here? Why, or why not?
8. Do your best to say why Kass thinks that cloning will result in “the commodification of nascent human life.” [See pp. 281-282] Why does he think that this commodification would be a bad thing?
9. Why, according to Kass, is cloning “inherently despotic”? [p. 282] Do you agree with Kass here? Why, or why not?
Reading Questions
Set IX
Michael Tooley, “Moral Status of Cloning Humans”
Applying Ethics, pp. 287-298
1. Why does Tooley think that considerations like those provided by Kass fail to show that human cloning is morally impermissible? [See especially pp. 294-
297]
2. Why does Tooley believe that human cloning is morally permissible in principle? [See especially pp. 291-291]
3. Do you agree
with Tooley? Why, or why not?
Reading Questions
Set X
James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”
Applying Ethics, pp. 236-240
1. What is the American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) policy regarding euthanasia, according to a statement adopted by the House of Delegates of the AMA on 4 December 1973? [p. 236]
2. According to Rachels, why is active euthanasia “actually preferable to passive euthanasia,” at least in cases such as that of “a patient who is [painfully] dying of incurable cancer of the throat”? [p. 237]
3. What is Rachels’ thought-experiment involving Smith and Jones supposed to show? [p. 238]
4. According to Rachels, what “crucial issue” does the AMA policy statement isolate? [p. 238]
5. What follows, according to Rachels, from his contention that “killing is not in itself any worse than letting die”? [p. 239]
6. According to Rachels, what does the doctor do in cases of passive euthanasia? [p. 239]
Reading Questions
Set XI
Philippa Foot, “Euthanasia”
Applying Ethics, pp. 240-255
1. According to Foot, what are we talking about “when we talk about euthanasia”? [p. 241]
2. For a fairly large amount of time, Foot worries about the “dauntingly difficult” task of explaining how an act of euthanasia aims “at the good of the one whose death is in question,” how “it is for his sake that his death is desired.” On page 246, she finally reaches her “admittedly inadequate” conclusion. What conclusion does she reach?
3. According to Foot, when is an act of euthanasia “attributed to an agent”? [p. 246]
4. Rachels believes that “the bare difference between killing and letting die does not, in itself, make a moral difference.” Would Foot agree with him in all cases? Why, or why not? [pp. 248-250]
5. What is Foot’s thought-experiment about the left-behind “wounded or exhausted soldiers” supposed to show? [p. 248]
6. What, according to Foot, is “the important thing” with regard to voluntary euthanasia? [p. 251]
7. What, with respect to its moral permissibility, is Foot’s conclusion about each of the four kinds of euthanasia? [pp. 250-251] For nonvoluntary passive euthanasia, voluntary active euthanasia, and voluntary passive euthanasia, try to give an example that demonstrates a situation in which euthanasia is morally permissible.
8. Recall Rachels’ discussion of euthanasia and an infant who suffers both from Down’s Syndrome and from an obstructed intestinal tract. Why, along with Rachels, does Foot disagree with euthanasia in a case like this? [p. 252]
Reading Questions
Set XII
Ernest Van Den Haag, “On Deterrence and the Death Penalty”
Applying Ethics, pp. 339-346
1. According to Van Den Haag, what must an opponent of capital punishment show in order to show that capital punishment is not justified? [p. 339]
2. According to Van Den Haag, what must a proponent of capital punishment show in order to show that capital punishment is justified? [p. 339]
3. What does Van Den Haag say becomes possible “if one . . . include[s] justice among the purposes of punishment”? [p. 340]
4. According to Van Den Haag, when “errors . . . occur in judicial proceedings”, where does the injustice lie: in the penalty itself, or in the imposition, or distribution, of the penalty? [p. 340]
5. On what, according to Van Den Haag, does deterrence depend? [p. 341]
6. According to Van Den Haag, why do “[m]ost people refrain from offenses”? [p. 341] Do you think that he is right about that? Why, or why not?
7. What alternative to capital punishment does Van Den Haag consider? [p. 343]
8. Describe some of the “fairly infrequent but important circumstances” in which, according to Van Den Haag, “the death penalty is the only possible deterrent.” [p. 343] Do you believe that, in those circumstances, the death penalty is the only possible deterrent?
9. What did Professor Thorsten Sellin conclude after he had “made a careful study of the available statistics” on crime? [p. 344]
10. According to Van Den Haag, what are some of the “changes and differences” that statistical analyses of the deterrent effect of the death penalty should account for, but do not? [p. 344]
11. When, according to Van Den Haag, will the imposition of the death penalty result in a net loss? When will it result in a net gain? [p. 345]
Reading Questions
Set XIII
Hugo Adam Bedau, “Capital Punishment and Social Defense”
Applying Ethics, pp. 347-354
1. What rule governs the actions of the police in “the use of violence in self-defense”? [p. 347]
2. What kind of use of violence is relevant to the death-penalty controversy? [p. 348]
3. What “two moral principles of great importance to our discussion” are illustrated by our rationale for self-defense? [p. 348]
4. What does it mean to say that executing a murderer is a crime-preventive measure? [p. 348]
5. What does it mean to say that executing a murderer is a crime deterrent? [p. 348]
6. When, according to Bedau, does prevention by incapacitation occur? [p. 349]
7. What, according to Bedau, is “the only way to guarantee that no horrible crimes ever occur”? [p. 349]
8. What, according to Bedau, is “the only way to guarantee that no convicted murderer ever commits another murder”? [p. 349]
9. According to the majority of social scientists, is the death penalty more of a deterrent that imprisonment? [pp. 349-350]
10. Bedau mentions three things that we must take into consideration when doing a cost/benefit analysis of the death penalty. What three things does he mention? [p. 350]
Reading Questions
Set XIV
Peter Singer, “All Animals Are Equal …”
Applying Ethics, pp. 459-471
1. What is the principle of equal consideration? [p. 459, introduction to article]
2. Why does Singer say that his principle of equality requires equal consideration rather than equal treatment? [p. 460]
3. What is speciesism? [p. 462]
4. Which characteristic does Bentham think is the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration? [p. 463]
5. What is the relationship between having interests and having the capacity for suffering and enjoyment? [p. 463]
6. What, according to Singer, is “the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others”? [p. 463]
7. How does the racist violate the principle of equality? How does the sexist violate the principle of equality? How does the speciesist violate the principle of equality? [p. 463]
8. What “breathtakingly simple reason” do some people have for thinking that we are never guilty of neglecting the interests of other animals? [p. 463]
9. What are some of the reasons why Singer believes that animals feel pain? [pp. 464-466]
10. What does Singer mean by ‘the same amount of pain’? [p. 467]
11. Singer claims that certain differences between humans and other animals might complicate our applications of the principle of equality. What are some of these differences? [p. 467]
12. What is the ‘sanctity of life’ view? [p. 468]
13. What, according to Singer, is the “only position that is irredeemably speciesist”? [p. 468]
14. What must we allow if we are to “avoid speciesism”? [p. 469]
Reading Questions
Set XV
Bonnie Steinbock, “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”
Applying Ethics, pp. 486-493
1. According to Steinbock, what does the moral philosopher have to ask? [p. 487]
2. What, according to Steinbock, is an “important difference between racism or sexism and ‘speciesism’”? [p. 487]
3. What is the “demand for human equality”? [p. 487]
4. According to Bernard Williams, why can’t demands for equality “rest on factual equality among people”? [p. 488]
5. According to Williams and to Richard Wasserstrom, in what does the “basis of equality” lie? Why have writers focused on that capacity? [p. 488]
6. What view does Steinbock wish to challenge? [p. 489]
7. What, according to Steinbock, are some of the counter-intuitive results of the view she challenges? [p. 489]
8. What, according to Steinbock, are some of the capacities that “all human beings possess … to some measure, and nonhuman animals do not”? [p. 490]
9. What “stronger claim” does Steinbock wish to make? [p. 491]
10. Steinbock thinks that “human lives are more valuable than animal lives.” Why does she think this? [p. 491] Do you agree with her here? Why, or why not?
11. What, according to Kevin Donaghy (and to Steinbock), is “a prerequisite for morally relevant capacities”? [p. 491]
12. Why does Steinbock think that it seems worse to experiment on handicapped members of our own species than to experiment on members of other species? [p. 492]
Reading Questions
Set XVI
Aldo Leopold, “The Land Ethic”
Applying Ethics, pp. 508-517
1. What, according to Leopold, is an ecological ethic? [p. 508]
2. What, according to Leopold, is a philosophical ethic? [p. 508]
3. What does Leopold refer to as “the third step in a sequence”? [p. 508]
4. Upon what single premise do all ethics “so far evolved” rest? [p. 509]
5. Which previously excluded things does Leopld’s “land ethic” include as parts of the community? [p. 509] Do you think that those things should be included as parts of the community? Why, or why not?
6. How, according to Leopold, does the land ethic change the role of Homo sapiens? [p. 509]
7. What, according to Leopold, is the content of conservation education? Why does he think that “this formula [is] too easy to accomplish anything worthwhile”? [p. 510]
8. According to Leopold, by what are land-use ethics still governed? [p. 511]
9. According to Leopold, what is wrong with “a system of conservation [that is] based solely on economic self-interest”? [p. 512]
10. What, according to Leopold, is “the only visible remedy” for the problems listed in your answer to question 9? [p. 512]
11. What, according to Leopold, is a “much truer image” of land as a biotic mechanism? Briefly describe that image. [p. 513]
12. Name a few of the “changes of unprecedented violence, rapidity, and scope” that “[m]an’s invention of tools has enabled him to make.” [pp. 513-514]
13. What “three basic ideas” does Leopold’s “thumbnail sketch of land as an energy circuit” convey? [p. 514]
14. What “one general deduction” does the “combined evidence of history and ecology” seem to support? [p. 515]
15. What does Leopold mean by ‘value’? [p. 516]
16. What, according to Leopold, is “[p]erhaps the most serious obstacle impeding the evolution of a land ethic”? [p. 516]
17. According to Leopold, when is a thing right? When is a thing wrong? [p. 516]
Reading Questions
Set XVII
Paul W. Taylor, “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”
Applying Ethics, pp. 517-528
1. Why, according to anthropocentric views of morality, are actions either right or wrong? [p. 518]
2. Briefly describe a life-centered system of environmental ethics. [p. 518]
3. According to Taylor, what two concepts “are essential to the taking of a [certain] moral attitude”? [p. 518]
4. What does it mean to say that “an entity has a good of its own”? [p. 519]
5. Must a being “have interests or take an interest in what affects its life for better of for worse” in order to have “a good of its own”? Why, or why not? [p. 519]
6. What two principles are involved in regarding “an entity that has a good of its own as possessing inherent worth”? [p. 519]
7. State the principle of moral consideration. [p. 519]
8. State the principle of intrinsic value. [p. 519]
9. What, according to Taylor, does it mean to say that a living thing or group of living things possesses inherent worth? [p. 520]
10. What attitude does Taylor call “respect for nature”? [p. 520]
11. What are the three components of the attitude of respect for nature? [p. 520]
12. What two things must we do if we are to “give good reasons for adopting the attitude of respect for nature”? [p. 521]
13. What is one major tenet of “the biocentric outlook on nature”? [p. 521]
14. Briefly describe Taylor’s theory of environmental ethics. [pp. 521-522]
15. What, according to Taylor, is “a teleological center of life”? [p. 525]
16. What sorts of judgments can we make when we take the standpoint of a particular teleological center of life? [p. 525]
17. Why, according to Taylor, would claims to human superiority be rejected from nonhuman standpoints? [p. 526]
18. What does one accept when one accepts the doctrine of species impartiality? [p. 527]
Reading Questions
Set XVIII
William F. Baxter, “People or Penguins”
Applying Ethics, pp. 529-533
1. What are Baxter’s four “ultimate testing criteria”? [p. 529]
2. What is the “spheres of freedom criterion”? [p. 529]
3. To what are Baxter’s criteria oriented? [p. 530]
4. Why does Baxter think that his “undeniably selfish” position “is the only tenable starting place for analysis”? [pp. 530-531]
5. What, according to Baxter, is the “first and most fundamental step toward solution of our environmental problems”? [p. 531]
6. What are Baxter’s four categories of resources? [p. 531]
7. What is “the meaningful sense in which [a new] dam is costly”? [p. 532]
8. According to Baxter, when should we “divert our productive capacities from the production of existing goods and services to the production of a cleaner, quieter, more pastoral nation”? [p. 532]
Return
to Tim’s Philosophy Page · Return to Tim Black’s Homepage